|
ayn rand hand job posted:Is he the guy who kept comparing it to Geek tragedies Even if he was, it's ok to compare things to G(r)eek tragedies, ayn rand hand job.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
dscruffy1 posted:I can't see the Joker getting as far as he did or his plan working out but maybe that's just me (it's not) This is kind of a problem with The Joker in general. It's present in Origins but it isn't uniquely present in Origins. The Joker is basically given free reign by writers. He can do anything, perfectly and flawlessly, and his plans always work until the very end of the story (and sometimes even then.) He is a master chemist, an expert hand-to-hand fighter, a genius, a flawless actor, ect, ect, ect. He has ni-infinite access to gadgets and tools and henchmen who are all perfectly obedient and treat him like he is a god. He's Batman in short except without even the slight wave at realism that Batman has. He is everything Batman is except that his resources and training and genius all just appear from the ether and it is by his nature that they never have to explain it because he is chaos. I said earlier that the Joker's superpower is that the writers favor him and it's true. This has been true for ages now. I'd say the last time we saw a particularly fallible or underequipped Joker was Batman:TAS and even then only rarely and other times he'd pull out his custom-built robots or whatever. And it sucks but the Joker is the beneficiary of the same "Batman can beat everyone with prep time" stuff, except since he's a villain he has to challenge that guy and so he effectively can do anything because his fans demand that he do so. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I'm always curious whenever someone says they prefer Origins to either of the other two. I feel like it has to come down to the order you played them in, when you bought Origins, how many patches had come out, and stuff like that. I bought Origins at launch and enjoyed it the most out of the three. The story, boss battles and set pieces were so satisfying, and gloomy, empty winter Gotham is my favorite setting so far. I never ran into any bugs during my playthrough, which likely colors my opinion. Asylum was great; City was fun, but was also big haphazard mess of Batman Stuff with admittedly refined controls. I sort of expect Knight to be the mess of City X 5 and that will be good enough to justify my money going away from me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
I think Origins' Joker is my favourite really, because he's less an unbeatable schemer who can't be beaten (except for when he suddenly takes over Blackgate which I think was a low point, both thematically and gameplay wise...) and just more of a feckless anarchist who really does not give a poo poo whether he lives or dies. It's pretty clear Bane could kill him in an instant but he simply doesn't care about that and actually finds it hilarious. He's not some keeeer-razy clown, he's a violent moodswinger who goes from darkly affable to murderously angry in a second. When Batman undoes his little plan at the end the fact he gets genuinely furious, rather than just laughing it off, pleased me so much. For once he cracked and it was beautiful to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Keeku posted:Origins released with a ton of bugs. Most the worst ones are fixed now. Apart from a fairly poor upgrade system and the challenges that can be locked out of completing if you miss the chance in the storyline to do them, I would argue Origins is more entertaining than City. I find I come back to it far more than the others. There was very little innovation though. I think the main reason it gets talked down a lot is the bad taste left from the bugs at launch. If the other Batman games didn't exist, it would probably have a better reputation as a decent game I think. Still beats the hell out of any recent Spider-Man game, that's for sure. I came back to the thread to say that the game is actually better than I remember it. At launch, I felt the combat was better than Asylum's but worse than City's - now I feel it's as good as City's. I mean, I'm still not nuts about the plotting or the characters, but the game does feel better. Can't put a finger on it. I seem to remember WB saying that patching Arkham Origins was like one of their lowest priorities? I'm glad they got around to fixing the crippling PC bugs I had read about (I played AO on 360 when it launched, so I avoided poo poo like the unsolvable Riddler puzzles). Maybe this won't be as unsatisfying as I was thinking it would be. THIRTEEN DAYS 'TILL KNIGHT, YOU GUYS
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
I like the part where Batman punches Joker a hundred times
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
cram me sideways posted:I seem to remember WB saying that patching Arkham Origins was like one of their lowest priorities? I'm glad they got around to fixing the crippling PC bugs I had read about (I played AO on 360 when it launched, so I avoided poo poo like the unsolvable Riddler puzzles). They patched all of the major bugs out, but the remaining ones were pretty superficial cosmetic stuff like the cape bugging out because of physics engine issues. They didn't so much as make an announcement and so much as say they were going to be moving the remaining team to finishing off Cold, Cold Heart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Oh shut up. Presumably the people saying this actually played the game and do not need someone else's playthrough to determine their opinion on it.I don't think much of Origins plot myself but the "go watch this LP and, heh, you'll see..." is goddamn dumb when you're talking to people who've actually played the game themselves and come up with an opinion on it based off that. I'm sending people there because I'm not going to repost several thousand words of analysis of the game's design and development, keyed to Scruffy's videos, in this thread. And you drat well know that I'm not the only person commenting on all the problems with that game's writing- it's just that they started to notice how much worse it was when it was being commented upon. People liked the "setpieces" of AO because they're stitched-together references to popular moments in the comics, and that caused them to look past the fact that in the game they make no drat sense. ImpAtom posted:The long and short of it is that DV has a really really weird and oddly personal hate-on for Origin. He/she is normally an okay poster but for some reason Arkham Origin tweaked them exactly the wrong way and they really really want people to agree that it is an Objectively Terrible Game In Every Way. I don't get it but that's basically what it boils down to. I have repeatedly explained this to you personally here and in the AO LP thread- it's because the viewer can use the many failings of the game, built on an effective engine, to diagnose what went wrong in its development. The game has traces of something potentially really good in there, but screws it up from every possible angle. Characters have violent mood swings and really important plot motivations are never explained. Characters and plot threads are introduced, then disappear without further explanation or reference. The prose in cutscenes is intolerable dreck. Camera angles are linear. Plotholes (really immediate, obvious ones, like Bane calling Batman "Bruce Wayne" out loud in front of a room full of criminals) abound. The game is a mess- and Firefly making puns, or a canned sequence from the Killing Joke, don't fix that. ayn rand hand job posted:They patched all of the major bugs out, but the remaining ones were pretty superficial cosmetic stuff like the cape bugging out because of physics engine issues. Many parts of the combat physics don't work or bug out on different systems, and the conditionals effecting open world events are all screwed up. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
its ok not to like Origins but the amount of words you've written about how much you hate it in that thread is insane
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
I liked a lot of set pieces in Origins and I've read maybe 4 comic books in my life and none of them were Batman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
CharlestonJew posted:its ok not to like Origins but the amount of words you've written about how much you hate it in that thread is insane Discendo Vox posted:it's because the viewer can use the many failings of the game, built on an effective engine, to diagnose what went wrong in its development. There are many worse games than Origins. Few of them are bad for reasons as interesting to understand. Gorn Myson posted:I liked a lot of set pieces in Origins and I've read maybe 4 comic books in my life and none of them were Batman. Why does Bane want to kill Batman? What happened to Alberto Falcone? If you don't care about writing, AO was a very well-written game. (the game's environments were entirely designed and built around setpieces, themselves based on concept art- it's part of why none of them cohere). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm sending people there because I'm not going to repost several thousand words of analysis of the game's design and development, keyed to Scruffy's videos, in this thread. And you drat well know that I'm not the only person commenting on all the problems with that game's writing- it's just that they started to notice how much worse it was when it was being commented upon. People liked the "setpieces" of AO because they're stitched-together references to popular moments in the comics, and that caused them to look past the fact that in the game they make no drat sense. I don't think ImpAtom is alone on this though. I tend to think you're off your rocker because of posts like these where it seems you have some built up idea in your head that you're actually illuminating a hypothetical group of people of people that the story is objectively bad, and also you've determined that there's some other hypothetical group of people who only likes the story (or "set pieces" or whatever you want to refer to them as) because of references since it would be impossible for their subjective experience with the game to differ from your objective and lengthy analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I have repeatedly explained this to you personally here and in the AO LP thread- it's because the viewer can use the many failings of the game, built on an effective engine, to diagnose what went wrong in its development. The game has traces of something potentially really good in there, but screws it up from every possible angle. No, it really doesn't, and that is why your criticism is not really meaningful. The fact that you unironically go "this game screwed up from every possible angle" which makes it clear you're not actually interested in discussing the flaws you're just interested in pushing your strange "this is the worst game ever" agenda. The fact that you have to 'repeatedly explain' to multiple people is a pretty good sign of this. I don't know what your personal issue is with the game but you're not being as objective as you think you are. Discendo Vox posted:Characters have violent mood swings and really important plot motivations are never explained. Characters and plot threads are introduced, then disappear without further explanation or reference. The prose in cutscenes is intolerable dreck. Camera angles are linear. Plotholes (really immediate, obvious ones, like Bane calling Batman "Bruce Wayne" out loud in front of a room full of criminals) abound. The game is a mess- and Firefly making puns, or a canned sequence from the Killing Joke, don't fix that. The plot is not great but literally everything you just stated (except the specific Bane example) occurs in all of the Arkham games and is almost certainly going to occur in Arkham Knight. Christ, there are multiple subplots in Arkham City that end with 'and then the character walks away, probably foreshadowing for a future game/a reference/ect." All of them have kinda dumb plots that are excuse for Batmanning and holding it against Origin in particular is silly. Discendo Vox posted:Why does Bane want to kill Batman? What happened to Alberto Falcone? If you don't care about writing, AO was a very well-written game. Alberto Falcone is a minor side character and what happens to him is not important except that he is a reference to the events of a comic. This is not an example of a plot hole because the only reason you expect something more significant is that he is (one of) the Long Halloween killers in the comics. This is not bad writing except that it is a reference and holy poo poo the Arkham games are full of references. Bane wanted to kill Batman for exactly the reason he did in the comics: to prove he could. He even says so. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
edit: double post
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:I don't think ImpAtom is alone on this though. I tend to think you're off your rocker because of posts like these where it seems you have some built up idea in your head that you're actually illuminating a hypothetical group of people of people that the story is objectively bad, and also you've determined that there's some other hypothetical group of people who only likes the story (or "set pieces" or whatever you want to refer to them as) because of references since it would be impossible for their subjective experience with the game to differ from your objective and lengthy analysis. It's more or less what's happening in the LP thread. There is a fair amount of "I didn't notice when I was playing that X was never explained/contradicted Y". I also spend a lot of time talking about what the game does right- but that's not something ImpAtom can attack, so he doesn't mention it. ImpAtom posted:Alberto Falcone is a minor side character and what happens to him is not important except that he is a reference to the events of a comic. This is not an example of a plot hole because the only reason you expect something more significant is that he is (one of) the Long Halloween killers in the comics. This is not bad writing except that it is a reference and holy poo poo the Arkham games are full of references. In Origins, Falcone disappears while still tied to a chair in the office with Penguin. The references in the other games are either resolved or a part of side plots, and are explicitly planned for resolution in AK. It's likely that the Falcones were originally going to play a larger role in the originally planned plot, which centered around Black Mask, Bane, and more conventional organized crime in Gotham. ImpAtom posted:Bane wanted to kill Batman for exactly the reason he did in the comics: to prove he could. He even says so. Bane has specific lines about "at long last, being free from the nightmares" or similar in the cutscene immediately following his first bossfight. It makes sense if you've seen Knightfall- otherwise it's meaningless. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's more or less what's happening in the LP thread. There is a fair amount of "I didn't notice when I was playing that X was never explained/contradicted Y". I also spend a lot of time talking about what the game does right- but that's not something ImpAtom can attack, so he doesn't mention it. I'm not reading the LP thread so no, I don't comment on the things you're posting in another thread. In this thread you posted that it "screws it up from every possible angle" so I commenting on what you said here. If you think the game does things right then why are you saying it screws it up from every possible angle? Discendo Vox posted:In Origins, Falcone disappears while still tied to a chair in the office with Penguin. The references in the other games are either resolved or a part of side plots, and are explicitly planned for resolution in AK. It's likely that the Falcones were originally going to play a larger role in the originally planned plot, which centered around Black Mask, Bane, and more conventional organized crime in Gotham. ... So you're criticizing it for doing the exact same things the other games did but it's different when Rocksteady does it. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Maybe you should read the LP thread!ImpAtom posted:I'm not reading the LP thread so no, I don't comment on the things you're posting in another thread. In this thread you posted that it "screws it up from every possible angle" so I commenting on what you said here. If you think the game does things right then why are you saying it screws it up from every possible angle? Because it screws up the things it does right. There's good incidental dialogue between goons in some of the open world events, but they didn't try to match events to goons, and the distance triggers on the audio system mean you miss most of them. The result is that, for example, enemies switch accents and gang affiliations before and after fights. (It looks like they had different writers for the general script, which is terrible, I mean really atrocious, and the ingame content. There are signs that separate recordings were made specifically to address some of the more egregious holes.) ImpAtom posted:... So you're criticizing it for doing the exact same things the other games did but it's different when Rocksteady does it. Yes and no- we already know that each of the open threads from AC- Hush, Azrael, etc were part of the plan for the third game. WB Montreal knew they were making a prequel, but the final product still had things in it that were raised and dropped unresolved. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Maybe you should read the LP thread! No thanks. So far you haven't actually made a real single argument. You've criticized the game for doing the same thing the other games did but it's okay there because you like Rocksteady. Arkham City's plot is a hot mess when looked at objectively. Hugo Strange is introduced and then usurped by the Joker and Ra's. Ra's himself is introduced semi-randomly and then comes back later to reveal he was the real villain all along half a second before he gets impaled on a spike and promptly dropped out of the story so it can focus on Joker. Characters appear for only a few moments in ways that only make sense if they are comic book references. (Hush, Azrael) or otherwise are completely meaningless. (Quincy Sharp, Vickie Vale). Batman has sudden shocking mood swings which barely make sense but allow him to be just enough of a dick to enable boss fights. Parts of the game are cut out and left unresolved unless you have optional DLC. If you want to tell me Arkham Origins is singularly bad then you're gonna have to put a lot of effort into getting me to believe Arkham City was somehow significantly better. I also don't think "they were going to make a sequel" makes it any better writing. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
You are a weird little wiener and should be stopped before you hurt yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So far you haven't actually made a real single argument. You've criticized the game for doing the same thing the other games did but it's okay there because you like Rocksteady. Well, this feels familiar! Here's the mess of  I wrote on this the last time it came up.(as an added bonus, the "It's like a Greek tragedy" line is in that post, for added mockery ammo. I also use the phrase "narrative conceit".) That's from more than a year ago. Going through AO again along with the LP has clarified a lot more of the problems, and a lot about why they happened, and how they effected the game. For instance, it was originally going to be Bane's goons taking part in the Jezebel Plaza deal- in the cutscene, they still have their outfits from early production art. It also appears that the bridge sequence is more or less exactly as it was originally planned, before Joker was involved. This might be part of why the writing there is more coherent than in other parts of the game- although I still hold the boss is weaksauce, and should have been a fiery version of the Freeze fight. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Dv, dude, you aren't gonna win here, you're not gonna convert anyone. At best, you're gonna get an even worse red text, possibly involving  wearing a batman mask. Walk away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Release Arkham Knight early, Rocksteady, we're not gonna make it! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, this feels familiar! Here's the mess of ... Uh, that did exactly the opposite of what you intended. The vast majority your responses there are either excusing plot points, writing them off or going literally "character is crazy/stupid, what they do doesn't have to make sense." Most of the answers you gave there are you making excuses for the game. Like seriously you just proved my point. You are willing to self-justify plot to yourself because you like Arkham City. You're not willing to do this for Arkham Origins because you dislike Arkham Origins. v  v
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Release Arkham Knight early, Rocksteady, we're not gonna make it! Preorder Arkham Knight at Forever 21 and get exclusive access to the game 1 hour early.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
I don't think Alberto Falcone sitting in a chair counts as a setpiece. The bridge sequence is a loving setpiece, and is not a pre-existing popular comics moment. redbackground fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Preorder Arkham Knight at Forever 21 and get exclusive access to the game 1 hour early. Fine. *walks through glass store facade and pushes over headless mannequins of 16 year old girls* I am the night.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess the reason people can say Origins has the best plot is because it establishes a relatively simple problem for Batman: "Stop the assassins and prevent these explosives from going off." Compare that to Joker's whole "I'm shipping my super AIDS out to every hospital and somehow no one tests this anonymously donated blood before injecting it into thousands of people." thing from Arkham City.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:
Remember,Joker's the center of the DC Universe as far as the writers are concerned,he can do whatever they need him to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't like Arkham Origins cause it's bad in a lot of ways. ImpAtom posted:Shut up! Stop expressing an opinion I don't like! Can't we all just get along? Origins is basically City's child. Origins tries its best to be like City, some things it does better, some things it does worse. At the end, it literally could not exist without City coming first. None of the Arkham games are objectively bad. I just think Origins was mediocre and that let down made some people more upset than others. But while I straddle this fence (and lean towards DV, sorry mates), I have to say "I didn't get any glitches" is a common thing I hear for people who enjoyed the game. That plays a pretty big role too I have to assume. Cause mine froze, I fell through the map several times, textures didn't load, and a whole lotta stuff in between. That kind of thing at launch made me less forgiving of Origins whereas someone who didn't get any of that wouldn't have that anger/disappointment. Is anyone but me gonna miss the multiplayer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Hobgoblin2099 posted:Yeah, I guess the reason people can say Origins has the best plot is because it establishes a relatively simple problem for Batman: "Stop the assassins and prevent these explosives from going off." I think it is also that Batman has a simple character arc that doesn't rely on prior comic knowledge to understand. He goes from untrusting dick to trusting dick. It isn't great art but it is honestly a lot more coherent than his plot in Arkham City which is a gigantic mishmash of plots borrowed from multiple sources and with no real clear focus. In particular the Batman/Joker imagery is all over the place and there is no real coherent way to get a read on their relationship without basing it off the comic book versions of the characters. Otherwise Batman's weird twisted relationship with the Joker doesn't really have any coherent basis within the confines of Arkham on its own. It is coherent if you're basing it off the weird mishmash versions of the characters that Arkham uses but not really outside of that. I suspect Arkham Knight might suffer from a similar effect., Either Arkham Knight is going to be Jason Todd and thus we're getting the Red Hood plotline with some minor changes or he's going to be a Brand New Character in which case we're probably still going to get that plotline but with Blason Blodd instead. (The game still looks fun as hell though.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... Uh, that did exactly the opposite of what you intended. The vast majority your responses there are either excusing plot points, writing them off or going literally "character is crazy/stupid, what they do doesn't have to make sense." Most of the answers you gave there are you making excuses for the game. The list was made by Hobgoblin2099, of all the plot holes he thought AC had. I don't say "character is crazy/stupid, what they do doesn't have to make sense"- I explain how they are crazy, but that the action is written to make sense to them. Each character's motivation is in line with their specific neuroses. Freeze stops thinking rationally when danger to his wife is involved, Strange has a delusional sense of control and heroic identity that is subverted as a major part of the plot structure, Deadshot takes unnecessary risks, etc. Hobgoblin2099 posted:Yeah, I guess the reason people can say Origins has the best plot is because it establishes a relatively simple problem for Batman: "Stop the assassins and prevent these explosives from going off." Right, people like origins because it doesn't call upon them to think about what is going on- and as a result, they miss all the holes. By contrast, AC has a lot going on, but if you don't pay attention, it seems like there are holes. ImpAtom posted:In particular the Batman/Joker imagery is all over the place and there is no real coherent way to get a read on their relationship without basing it off the comic book versions of the characters. Otherwise Batman's weird twisted relationship with the Joker doesn't really have any coherent basis within the confines of Arkham on its own. It is coherent if you're basing it off the weird mishmash versions of the characters that Arkham uses but not really outside of that. Joker and Batman's relationship is literally the first and last scenes of the game.  The inevitability of Joker's death, and the idea that Batman is symbolically at fault for it, but that it was preordained by their dialectically opposed natures, is one of the overarching points of the game. The other one is that almost all of the main characters are fundamentally undermined in their goals by their mental illnesses- a part of the larger Tragic format the game uses. AC does a really nice job of exploring the classic batman themes of madness and the city in an original way. AO looks like it was going to focus on noir and crime elements more, to an extent. AK looks like it's going to focus really heavily on the city aspect so far, but we'll have to see. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Please get help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Edit: Honestly, it isn't worth it anymore. The point has been made.
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I suspect Arkham Knight might suffer from a similar effect., Either Arkham Knight is going to be Jason Todd and thus we're getting the Red Hood plotline with some minor changes or he's going to be a Brand New Character in which case we're probably still going to get that plotline but with Blason Blodd instead. Major spoilers- it was leaked way back in development: Discendo Vox posted:The Arkham Knight is going to be Joker's cloned corpse of brainwashed Jason Todd, hypnotized by the Mad Hatter into believing he is Talia al Ghul, surgically planted in a HARDAC body replica of Barbara Gordon, enhanced with meditation techniques passed down by Lady Shiva(really a fake imitation created by Poison Ivy) that have rewritten its personality to mimic Damien, transformed by the Lazarus Pit and the treatments of the ghost of Professor Strange into a perfect copy of Solomon Wayne that believes he is the heir of the mantle of Batman's future Cadmus project clone-child's illegitimate ward, Man-Bat, only he's gone into a fugue state where he believes he is actually a retconned character from a previous version of the universe(before Ultimate Crisis), Red Hood, who has a secondary backup personality in the case of subconscious tampering by the Court of Owls, which has prepared for the situation by studying and perfectly mimicking the behaviors, tics and techniques of the Gray Ghost, which will be revealed to call himself the Joker. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Major spoilers- it was leaked way back in development: I'd say that doesn't sound believable but then you mentioned Geoff Johns and now I believe it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'd say that doesn't sound believable but then you mentioned Geoff Johns and now I believe it. Looking back over that post, I'm kicking myself for not including Owlman, Prometheus, Clayface, or Joker. From wikipedia: quote:Rocksteady opted to use its own team of writers, headed by game director Sefton Hill, and returning writer Paul Crocker, with script elements by Martin Lancaster; Geoff Johns served as a consultant on the plot. Paul Crocker was credited as lead narrative designer for AA and AC, so he's likely the person to credit with the good parts of those games (like the visiting area in AA and the camerawork in AC). Geoff Johns is specifically credited on imdb as the creator of the Arkham Knight, so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Major spoilers- it was leaked way back in development: Mind spoilering that entire quote? Some of us don't care about leaks and want to be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
ThermoPhysical posted:Mind spoilering that entire quote? Some of us don't care about leaks and want to be surprised. 'tis but a joke. I'll unspoil it so it's clear- I have no desire to cause confusion. vvvv Yeah, if you don't care about the writing, weren't going for 100% and avoided the bugs, the fighting refinements in the later games make AO a lot more enjoyable. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Hey guys, I just wanted to pop in and say that Origins was way more fun than Asylum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:15 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'd say that doesn't sound believable but then you mentioned Geoff Johns and now I believe it. Nah, nowhere as literal as it needs to be for Johns. Loeb, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 01:20
|
|
